Senior Managed Care System for Hip Fracture in the United States

(1)

Hip fracture in geriatric patients is an important concern for healthcare systems worldwide. It is the number one cause of hospitalization in elderly patients. Hip fractures increase in prevalence with age. The aging of global society has resulted in increasing prevalence of hip fractures.^1-3) Expenditures for hip fractures in the United States is rising faster than the general rate of inflation.^4,5)

Hip fractures in the elderly can lead to severe complications and consequences.³⁾ Severe complications can increase the mortality rate of elderly patients by 3-fold when compared to those without hip fracture history.^5-8) The life expectancy falls by 38% to 58% in the elderly

with hip fractures.⁹⁾ Among those surviving the first year after hip surgery, about 25% to 75% achieve full ambulatory status. Many patients that have a successful first year of recovery will never regain complete independence of physical activities that they had before the fracture. Ap- proximately half of the elderly patients regain their pre-hip fracture health status and around 20% are in need of extra medical and supportive care.^7,10)

Hip fractures also reduce the level of daily living activities and, consequently, the quality of life in elderly patients. About half of hip fracture patients are still dis- abled 1 year after the time of fracture with only about one- quarter of patients regaining their prefracture activities of daily living.^7,11) The primary purpose of treatment and rehabilitation in the elderly after a hip fracture is to improve the quality of life. Introduction of achievable aims through an adequate rehabilitation program allows for maximally independent life of the elderly after a hip fracture.^3,12) The rehabilitation program should consist of a multidisciplinary approach with coordination of members through

Senior Managed Care System for Hip Fracture in the United States

Hamed Yazdanshenas, MD*

^,†,‡

, Eleby R. Washington IV, MD

^§

, Arya Nick Shamie, MD

^‡

, Firooz Madadi, MD

^∥

, Eleby R. Washington III, MD

^§

*Department of Family Medicine, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, CA, Departments of ^†Family Medicine and ^‡Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA,

§Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, CA, USA,

∥Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Tehran, Iran

Background: It is debatable whether a managed care model would affect the quality of care and length of hospital stay in the treatment of hip fractures in elderly patients.

Methods: This prospective study was undertaken to determine whether or not a managed care critical pathway tool shortened hospital stay in a group of 102 senior patients with fractures of the hip during follow-up. We compared our study findings with two equivalent populations of senior hip fracture patients not treated using a critical care pathway concerning specific markers of quality.

Results: The managed care group had a 9% mortality rate, 95% return to prefracture living and 63% return to ambulatory status.

The rates compared favorably with previous studies. The quality of care provided before and after the critical pathway was equivalent, while the post-pathway length of stay dropped 30%.

Conclusions: The proposed care protocol is recommended to shorten hospital stay in elderly patients with hip fractures.

Keywords: Hip fractures, Aged, Length of stay

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery • pISSN 2005-291X eISSN 2005-4408 Received April 5, 2015; Accepted November 2, 2015

Correspondence to: Hamed Yazdanshenas, MD

Department of Family Medicine, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science & Departments of Family Medicine and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angles (UCLA), 1731 East 120th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90059, USA

Tel: +1-323-357-3452, Fax: +1-323-357-3660 E-mail: Yazdanshenas@ucla.edu

(2)

a comprehensive schedule³⁾ to maximize adherence to the rehabilitation protocols.^13-17)

Since the treatment for a hip fracture is associated with significant rates of mortality and morbidity, optimiz- ing medical care is important. Developing multidisciplinary care pathways for older patients with hip fractures could reduce the high burden on the medical and social system.¹⁶⁾ This study was based on the hypothesis that a comprehensive care pathway for elderly patients with hip fracture to improve the quality of care has the additional benefit of shortened length of hospital stay. The study compared a cohort of hip fractures patients treated using the managed care model to a cohort of similar patients who did not undergo this pathway. The research team evaluated and compared the measured outcomes before and after the establishment of the critical care pathway, including length of stay (LOS), mortality, major and minor complications, reoperation rate, readmission rate, ambulatory status, and living status.

METHODS

Study Population

In this prospective study, 102 patients (50 females and 52 males) between 63 and 93 years of age (average age of 79 years) were recruited during a 12-month period from Charter Community Hospital, a large Health Maintenance Organization in Los Angeles. They were treated according to a proposed specific treatment protocol shown in Ap- pendix 1 and described below. The measured outcomes after the establishment of the critical care pathway were compared with the outcome data related to an equivalent population of elderly patients with hip fractures who were treated without the protocol during two equivalent 12-month period (2 years [period A] and 3 years [period B] prior to implementation of the managed care system).

The patients and/or their families were informed that data from the case would be submitted for publication, and gave their consent. In addition, approval was given by the Charter Community Hospital Institutional Review Board and consent was obtained from each patient.

Protocol and Postoperative Care

The patients were treated according to a proposed specific treatment protocol for hip fracture in elderly patients (Appendix 1). This protocol is a written critical pathway that includes a daily schedule for patient care with input concerning physician care, physical therapy, nursing care, dietary care, social work, and discharge planning. Ad- ditionally, a rehabilitation program was initiated by the

orthopedic surgeon, often within a day after surgery, with mobilization out of bed to a chair and progression to ambulation training. The main aim of the rehabilitation program was to prevent complications caused by bed rest and to retain the level of activity strength that patients had before the fracture. As long as the orthopedic surgeon clinically determined that patients could comfortably bear full weight on the injured leg, ambulation (walking) and exercises were started. Additionally, during the 1 to 2 months after discharge, patients were trained and supervised by a physical therapy team to do daily muscle strengthening exercises. Also, postoperative pain was clinically managed by the surgeon with systemic opioids, paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as well as local an- esthetic blocks. Patients were educated by a trained nurse on nutrition supplements and fall prevention.

Study Variables

The patients were prospectively evaluated within 12 months after being admitted to the Charter Community Hospital for treatment of a hip fracture. Information concerning patient age, gender, type of fracture, type of treatment, pre- and postoperative ambulatory status, and pre- and postoperative living arrangements were recorded.

These records were made by the participating orthopedic surgeons on a questionnaire, broken down into in different time intervals including time of admission within 24, 40, 72 hours postoperatively and the day of this discharge (Appen- dix 2). Information from the questionnaires was comput- erized for retrieval of appropriate information.

Comparative Variables

In addition to evaluation of information concerning the study group of patients, we compared the recorded data from the 102 patients with the data from two equivalent groups of elderly patients with hip fractures who were treated without implementing any protocol in the same hospital. These groups were treated 2 year (period A: 57 females and 41 males; average age, 77 years) and 3 years (period B: 54 females and 42 males; average age, 79 years) prior to the use of the critical pathway protocol. These two periods represented equivalent periods of time with equivalent patient populations. The data was provided by Charter Community Hospital data center after matching the two groups’ characteristics with the study population.

There was no statistically significant difference among the groups compared (p < 0.05) and these two groups were similar to the study participants in age, sex, race, chronic condition, and type of fracture. There were no major changes in the population patient base being treated

(3)

during the years under consideration. The research team were able to compare those available data from these two groups, which could be considered as sensitive indicators of quality of care within 12 months follow-up after surgery, including re-admission rate, mortality rate, complication rate, reoperation rate, and LOS.

Surgical Treatment

The surgical treatment of the hip fractures was accom- plished according to the judgment and experience of the individual surgeon treating that particular patient. The types of treatment employed were: open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with cannulated screws or Knowles pins, ORIF with dynamic hip screw (DHS), arthroplasty with Austin Moore prosthesis, unipolar arthroplasty, Leinbach arthroplasty, and bipolar arthroplasty. The operative tech- niques consisted of numerous surgical approaches including a small lateral incision for percutaneous cannulated screw fixation, standard lateral approach for insertion of a DHS compression screw-plate, and lateral and posterior approaches for hip arthrotomy for insertion of hip pros- theses. In the cases of prosthetic insertion, cement may or may not have been used according to the individual de- sires of the treating surgeons.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS ver.

20.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA). In addition to a descriptive analysis of all variables, bivariate analysis was conducted to determine the correlates of independent variables. At the descriptive level, the distribution and frequency of all items were examined. The chi-square test was performed to examine the association between independent variables and outcome variables. And a p- value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Ad- ditionally, the chi-square test was used to match two study populations (in periods A and B) with the critical pathway population, to ensure there was no statistically significant difference among the groups compared (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Of the initial 135 patients from 176 screened patients, 33 could not be located for final follow-up. The data of 102 patients were analyzed.

Study Variables Type of fracture

Out of the 102 hip fractures, 42 (41%) were femoral neck fractures and 60 (58%) were intertrochanteric hip fractures.

Type of surgery

Fourteen patients had Austin-Moore arthroplasties, four had cannulated screw fixation, 41 had a DHS hip sliding screw device, 14 had a Leinbach arthroplasty, seven had a unipolar arthroplasty, and 13 patients had a bipolar arthroplasty. Thirty-eight patients were treated for femoral neck fractures, of which four patients (11%) had internal fixation, while 34 (89%) were treated with femoral head replacement. Fifty-five procedures were done for intertrochanteric hip fractures. Of the 55 procedures, 42 (75%) were internally fixed with DHS screw plates and 13 (25%) were treated with a Leinbach head neck replacements.

Ambulatory status

Prior to the occurrence of the hip fracture, 68 patients (67%) were independently ambulatory without aid, while 26 patients (25%) used a cane or walker and eight patients (8%) were nonambulatory. Post-fracture, 32 patients (31%) remained independently ambulatory, while 63 patients (62%) used a cane or walker at 1 year.

Living status

Ninety-three patients (91%) were available for review. Pre- operatively, 31 patients (33%) lived alone, 56 patients (60%) lived with their family, and six (7%) lived in a care facility, such as a nursing home. Postoperatively, 29 patients (31%) continued living alone, 53 patients (57%) continued to live with family, and 11 patients (12%) lived in a care facility.

Comparative Variables Mortality rate

Of the 102 patients who were followed for an average of 1 year postsurgery, nine deaths occurred, representing a 9%

death rate. According to actuarial tables, this represents the expected average death rate for the normal population at age 79. Reported rates in the literature of 12% to 30%,^3-5,7) corresponding to 2- to 4-fold increase in death rates in the elderly populations following hip fracture, were not evident in our study.

No increase in death rate over what would be expected for age was found. Four of these deaths occurred in the immediate postoperative period, while five occurred within the ensuing postoperative period. The mortality rate for period A and B was 8.3% and 9.1%, respectively.

Complications

The complication for patients treated using the critical pathway and those in period A and B was 28%, 27%, and 28%, respectively. These were mainly minor medical

(4)

complications, such as urinary tract infections, and minor respiratory dysfunction such as postoperative atelectasis.

Readmission and reoperation rates

The rate of readmission and reoperation for the study patients was 3% and 1.4%, respectively. The respective rates were 2.6% and 3.1% for period A, and 3.1% and 1.6% for period B (Table 1).

Length of stay

Mean ± standard deviation LOS for patients in the critical pathway, period A, and period B, groups was 4.5 ± 0.5, 6.45 ± 0.7, and 7.15 ± 0.5 days, respectively, representing a statistically significance 30% decrease for the treatment group (p = 0.043). The majority of the patients in the three groups who were surgically and medically stable were dis- charged to a secondary care facility for continued physical therapy at a reduced expense compared to a much more expensive care received in our primary hospital. Thus, the decreased LOS was directly attributable to the institution of the critical care pathway.

Quality of Care

There were no statistically significant differences in complications, readmissions, mortality, and reoperations between the critical pathway, period A, and period B groups.

From this limited perspective of the study, no statistical differences in quality markers were evident between the three groups. This makes sense as the same group of physicians cared for these patients.

DISCUSSION

It is widely accepted that surgical treatment of hip fractures is appropriate to insure the best possible outcome in

a group of elderly patients. Previous studies on conservative hip fractures with methods like traction, casting, and bed rest have been shown to have high morbidity and mortality rates.^18-20) Despite aggressive interventional treatment, which has improved results,^21-25) most physicians continue to view hip fracture in the elderly population as a significant medical event that may herald the demise of many of these patients, further decreasing their quality of life. Developing and implementing comprehensive care pathways for elderly patients with a hip fracture could improve the quality of care and also reduce the related costs in the health care system.

This study proposed and employed a comprehensive care pathway among 102 elderly patients with hip fractures. The patients were followed prospectively for specific markers of quality. Additionally, the findings of this study were compared with two equivalent groups (A and B) of senior hip fracture patients treated by the same group of surgeons who did the surgeries in the same manner without institution of any critical care pathway. Additionally, the post-discharge rehabilitation programs were tailored individually by the surgeon for each patient, based on patient age, medical condition (physical and mental), place of residence (e.g., home, skilled nursing facility, nursing home, rehab facility), and type of surgery. These post- discharge rehabilitation programs were not as a part of the introduced protocol.

Contrary to this commonly held gloomy point of view, the mortality rates did not increase above what would be predicted. This suggests that our intervention, both surgically and preoperatively, played a major role in preventing the increased mortality rate expected in similar patient populations in other studies.^18,23-25)

In addition to this finding we evaluated the quality of life post-fracture by evaluating differences in their Table 1. Comparison of Surgery Outcome before and after Institution of the Critical Pathway

Comparative variable Pre-critical pathway Post-critical pathway

p-value Period A (n = 98) Period B (n = 96) This study (n = 102)

Readmission rate 3 (2.6) 3 (3.1) 3 (3) 0.432

Reoperation rate 1 (1.4) 2 (1.6) 1 (1.4) 0.403

Complication rate 26 (27) 24 (25) 29 (28) 0.261

Mortality rate 8 (8.3) 9 (9.1) 9 (9) 0.395

Length of stay (day) 6.45 7.15 4.5 0.043*

Values are presented as number (%).

*Statistically significant (p < 0.05).

(5)

ambulatory status and living arrangements. Only 45% of patients who were ambulatory without a supportive device remained the same post-fracture. However, 93% of those who were able to ambulate by some means prefracture remained able to ambulate by some means post treatment.

Although this data suggests that many patients do not regain their previous independent ambulatory status, their quality of life is not significantly altered. We also found that our treatment allowed most of these patients to return to their prefracture living arrangements, which also enhanced their quality of life.

In regards to treatment of specific fracture pattern types, 90% of the patients with femoral neck fractures were treated with femoral head replacement. This pattern re- flects the belief that due to the high incidence of nonunion and avascular necrosis in femoral neck fractures, femoral head replacement is the best way to achieve a consistently good surgical outcome and mobilize the patients earlier.

On the other hand, intertrochanteric femur fractures were predominantly treated with ORIF. This is also consistent with the belief that this fracture will heal appropriately and result in a good short and long term outcome.

In the elderly, treatment of hip fracture is costly. In an era when health care costs are an important issue in the American economy, it is important that medical providers develop and implement feasible care pathways to reduce the cost in the treatment of hip fracture.²⁶⁾ One of the important drivers of hospital cost and resource utilization in patients with hip fracture is hospital stay.^27,28) LOS is an important factor when considering the medical economics of hip fracture care, and reducing LOS is an important meth- od to reduce hip fracture associated costs. Previous studies

focused on identifying and modifying factors associated with LOS. However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have introduced and implemented a care pathway with the aim of shortening LOS among elderly patients with hip fracture.^26,29-30) Presently, patients in the period A and B groups, who had a significantly longer LOS than those treated using the critical pathway, displayed an increased rate of efficiency in progressing through the initial periop- erative period. This increased efficiency would translate to considerable savings in treatment costs.

A potential limitation of this study is the heteroge- neity of study population, which could contribute to postoperative results after operation of the hip fractures. Also, since the data related to periods A and B were provided by Charter Community Hospital data center (after matching the two groups’ characteristics with the study population), the study team did not have access to the detailed information of periods A and B, and were not able to present the comparison results between these groups with each parameter.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dr. Yazdanshenas is a scholar supported by the Clinical Research Education and Career Development (CRECD), grant 5MD007610, NIH-NIMHD and Accelerating Excel- lence in Translational Sciences (AXIS) grant NIH/NIMHD

#U54 MD007598.

REFERENCES

1. Franklin M, Berdunov V, Edmans J, et al. Identifying patient-level health and social care costs for older adults dis- charged from acute medical units in England. Age Ageing.

2014;43(5):703-7.

2. Kanis JA, Oden A, McCloskey EV, et al. A systematic review of hip fracture incidence and probability of fracture worldwide. Osteoporos Int. 2012;23(9):2239-56.

3. Radosavljevic N, Nikolic D, Lazovic M, Jeremic A. Hip fractures in a geriatric population: rehabilitation based on patients needs. Aging Dis. 2014;5(3):177-82.

4. Cooper C, Cole ZA, Holroyd CR, et al. Secular trends in the incidence of hip and other osteoporotic fractures. Osteopo- ros Int. 2011;22(5):1277-88.

5. Cummings SR, Melton LJ. Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet. 2002;359(9319):1761-7.

6. Roche JJ, Wenn RT, Sahota O, Moran CG. Effect of comor- bidities and postoperative complications on mortality after hip fracture in elderly people: prospective observational cohort study. BMJ. 2005;331(7529):1374.

7. Magaziner J, Fredman L, Hawkes W, et al. Changes in functional status attributable to hip fracture: a comparison of hip fracture patients to community-dwelling aged. Am J Epide- miol. 2003;157(11):1023-31.

8. Chabok SY, Yazdanshenas H, Naeeni AF, et al. The impact of body mass index on treatment outcomes among traumat- ic brain injury patients in intensive care units. Eur J Trauma

(6)

Emerg Surg. 2014;40(1):51-5.

9. Vestergaard P, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L. Loss of life years after a hip fracture. Acta Orthop. 2009;80(5):525-30.

10. Leibson CL, Tosteson AN, Gabriel SE, Ransom JE, Melton LJ. Mortality, disability, and nursing home use for persons with and without hip fracture: a population-based study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(10):1644-50.

11. Haentjens P, Magaziner J, Colon-Emeric CS, et al. Meta- analysis: excess mortality after hip fracture among older women and men. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(6):380-90.

12. Munin MC, Seligman K, Dew MA, et al. Effect of rehabilitation site on functional recovery after hip fracture. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(3):367-72.

13. Hung WW, Egol KA, Zuckerman JD, Siu AL. Hip fracture management: tailoring care for the older patient. JAMA.

2012;307(20):2185-94.

14. Beaupre LA, Jones CA, Saunders LD, Johnston DW, Buck- ingham J, Majumdar SR. Best practices for elderly hip fracture patients: a systematic overview of the evidence. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(11):1019-25.

15. Handoll HH, Cameron ID, Mak JC, Finnegan TP. Multidis- ciplinary rehabilitation for older people with hip fractures.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):CD007125.

16. Flikweert ER, Izaks GJ, Knobben BA, Stevens M, Wendt K.

The development of a comprehensive multidisciplinary care pathway for patients with a hip fracture: design and results of a clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:188.

17. Yazdanshenas H, Madadi F, Madadi F, Washington ER 3rd, Jones K, Shamie AN. Patellar tendon donor-site healing during six and twelve months after anterior cruciate liga- ment reconstruction. J Orthop. 2015;12(4):179-83.

18. Murray RC, Frew JF. Trochanteric fractures of the femur: a plea for conservative treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1949;

31(2):204-19.

19. Madadi F, Yazdanshenas H, Madadi F, Bazargan-Hejazi S.

Double acetabular wall. A misleading point for hip arthroplasty: an anatomical, radiological, clinical study. Int Or-

thop. 2013;37(6):1007-11.

20. Clinton J, Franta A, Polissar NL, et al. Proximal humeral fracture as a risk factor for subsequent hip fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(3):503-11.

21. Beals RK. Survival following hip fracture: long follow-up of 607 patients. J Chronic Dis. 1972;25(4):235-44.

22. Valizadeh M, Mazloomzadeh S, Golmohammadi S, Larijani B. Mortality after low trauma hip fracture: a prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:143.

23. Mulholland RC, Gunn DR. Sliding screw plate fixation of intertrochanteric femoral fractures. J Trauma. 1972;12(7):581- 91.

24. Sarmiento A. Avoidance of complications of internal fixation of intertrochanteric fractures: experience with 250 con- secutive cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1967;53:47-59.

25. Stroup NE, Freni-Titulaer LW, Schwartz JJ. Unexpected geo- graphic variation in rates of hospitalization for patients who have fracture of the hip: medicare enrollees in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72(9):1294-8.

26. Ricci WM, Brandt A, McAndrew C, Gardner MJ. Factors affecting delay to surgery and length of stay for patients with hip fracture. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(3):e109-14.

27. Pendleton AM, Cannada LK, Guerrero-Bejarano M. Factors affecting length of stay after isolated femoral shaft fractures.

J Trauma. 2007;62(3):697-700.

28. el-Darzi E, Vasilakis C, Chaussalet T, Millard PH. A simula- tion modelling approach to evaluating length of stay, oc- cupancy, emptiness and bed blocking in a hospital geriatric department. Health Care Manag Sci. 1998;1(2):143-9.

29. Khan SK, Rushton SP, Dosani A, Gray AC, Deehan DJ. Fac- tors influencing length of stay and mortality after first and second hip fractures: an event modeling analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27(2):82-6.

30. Garcia AE, Bonnaig JV, Yoneda ZT, et al. Patient variables which may predict length of stay and hospital costs in elderly patients with hip fracture. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(11):

620-3.

(7)

Appendix 1. Treatment protocol for hip fracture in elderly patients.

(8)

Appendix 1. Continued.

(9)

Appendix 2. Evaluation forms.

A

(10)

Appendix 2. Continued.

B